Talk:Constitution class
Ship Listings The ship listings on this page are divided by source rather than the usual registration and then alphabetic for ships with unknown registry. Which result in double listing of several ships where different sources have different registrations which its self results in too pages for the same ship but with different registrations, further the sources of the lists should list them on there respective pages so would it not be sensible to reorder the lists like other class pages and have the same ships with different registrations listed as a single entry with both registrations noted? -- 8of5 21:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC) Subclasses What is the difference between a Bonhomme Richard and Constitution subclass? I presume Enterprise subclass is all refitted ones? -- 8of5 18:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC) :The distinction was drawn from the Technical Manual where the Constitution type was the first batch of vessels launched in the 2240s and is assumed to have similar specifications to what was seen in "The Cage" with a crew of 203 etc. While the Bonhomme Richard was a newer batch of starships launched in the 2250s and had specifications similar to the Enterprise as seen in TOS with a crew of 430 etc. :In addition to this were the further Achernar type which was supposed to be a further upgrade to the Bonhomme Richard and feature cosmetic changes such as an additional turbolift on the bridge. The different batches were highlighted in the book, but the technical information is derived from various sources.--The Doctor 18:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC) ::So anything above 1712 will be of the Bonhomme Richard type? And all the originals were meant to have undergone a refit to meet that specification at some point like the Enterprise? -- 8of5 11:34, 17 October 2006 (PDT) Basically yes, although the Technical Manual didn't indicate this. But as we saw from the Enterprise that was probably likely. A lot of other sources have covered the Constitution-class in detail including Ship's of the Starfleet, which suggests that the Constellation and Republic were refitted from older starship classes as test-bed's. They also built on Franz Joseph's work of having several additional sub-types. * Constitution: NCC-1017, NCC-1371, NCC-1700 to NCC-1711. * Bonhomme Richard: NCC-1712 to NCC-1727, plus refits * Endeavour: NCC-1716 to NCC-1726 (Refits), NCC-1728 to NCC-1731 (New Builds) * Achernar: NCC-1732 to NCC-1744, NCC-1745 to NCC-1799 proposed, not built * Enterprise: Refitted from earlier sub-types * Tikopai: NCC-1800 to NCC-1832 * Enterprise (II): Refit of Enterprise sub-types beginning with Enterprise-A Request This page has been greatly expanded on since the above chatter, the sub-classes stuff is much better organised now. However apart from a breakdown of the armaments its not entirely clear what the differences between he subclasses are. Could someone with the sources that describe this possible write up a section to explain that? --8of5 22:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC) Appearances I've tidied up Stripy's list abit but am not sure about some fo the entries, cant even find a listing on this wiki or memory alpha for a couple of the novels listed so can anyone familiar with them confirm Constitution class ships appaered in the following: * Have Tech, Will Travel (SCE eBook) * Once Burned (NF novel) * Reunion (TNG novel) * The Captains' Honor (TNG novel) * The Children of Hamlin (TNG novel) * Worf's First Adventure (TNG:SA novel) --8of5 23:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC) :I think I'm remembering correctly with the list. * Have Tech, Will Travel: Featured the Defiant in Interphase, Books 1 & 2 * Reunion: Mentioned the Lexington as a Constitution, despite their being the Nebula-class Lexington in service. * The Captain's Honor: Featured the Constitution-class USS Centurion, in Magna Roman service and was renamed from the Farragut. * Worf's First Adventure: Mentioned the USS Farragut in a history lesson. :As for Once Burned and The Children of Hamlin I don't know. To my knowledge the only other starship in Hamlin was the ''Constellation''-class, USS Ferrel.--The Doctor 23:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC) New Idea With the conflicting registries given for the Constitution-class wouldn't it now be better if we just moved the ships with conflicting registries to USS #### (Constitution class), at least until the registries can be seen on screen in the TOS remastered series? --The Doctor 13:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC) : I'll second that, and add a suggestion that (possibly for all classes) that we not bother with NCC numbers for ships whose sole existence in print is on a list (from one of the RPGs or some such).--Emperorkalan 13:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC) ::And thirded, don't quite understand what you are suggesting Emperorkalan. -- 8of5 21:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC) :Might I suggest we give some weight to the current novelverse continuity view on these as well? Eg, if the novelverse is using one registration over an rpg or whatnot then make that the main registration and page title as you would if it were canologically confirmed. -- 8of5 04:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC) ::Indeed, since by and large the novels are more consistent, and (probably) what most people here will be going by. --TimPendragon 04:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC) :::That's actually pretty much what I was suggesting above, though I (mistakenly) included something that turned out not to be the case: I was under the impression that including the NCC number in the title of the ship's page (e.g.: USS XXXXX (NCC-####)) for ships that had no other information except they were on a list of ship names & NCCs (from the technical manual or an RPG) was being done frequently, but some subsequent checking showed that impression to be false. Most just use USS XXXX for the page name, which made the part of my post suggesting that that be done a tad moot.--Emperorkalan 11:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC) Update I just purchased the book and noticed that the canonically accepted registries were used for the Connie's. It is therefore most likely that when Remastered TOS shows "The Ultimate Computer" it will most likely use the canon registries, therefore I suggest we move those ships to the pages with the canon registries. --The Doctor 18:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Known Ship Listing With the known ship listing being a right mess with different registries being given for the various ships, I though we could split it all up into the chart shown below which would list the ship's name in one column, and then the other four would display the registry number as given in various sources. --The Doctor 11:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC) Good idea, the subclasses could be listed too. -- 8of5 18:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC) One thing, how do you suggest we establish which ones are the canon ones? -- 8of5 18:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC) :Thanks for the advice. I'll think it over tomorrow and see what I can work out. --The Doctor 23:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC) early constitution variant? I read on memory alpha that the enterprise from the cage under pike, had a smaller crew,200 some so would that make it an early variant possibly like a constellation class? just curious someone help me out here please. Was thinking destroyer type saucer on the secondary hull with 2 warp nacelles that would be alot more available power for exploration? food for thought thanks --Chasbkr 01:45, January 15, 2010 (UTC) Known vessels section The "Known vessels" list currently takes up most of the page. Would anyone object to either moving it to a separate article or reducing it to just the template that already links to the various subclass lists? --Columbia clipper 17:32, July 17, 2010 (UTC) :I'd object to replacing the lists with templates, as that would eliminate the full name and registry of each ship being listed here. I would however be open to a lot of information being moved to the separate sub-class pages; this page could list only the unknown sub-class and MK1 ships, and simply "see: whatever-subclass for listing of ships" for the other sub-classes. There's one pretty big issue with that though; the vast majority of references to the Constitution-class refer to the class as a whole, ignorant of sub-classes. So it could be very confusing for a causal viewer to come here and expect to find their favourite refit ship in a list, only to have to figure out the refits are in fact called Enterprise-class and find their way to that article. We should at least take the mirror ships of this page though, now there's a separate page for the mirror-''Constitution''-class. --8of5 18:35, July 17, 2010 (UTC) ::The Mirror Constitution-class is explicitly the same class as the regular universe''Constitution''-class, so it belongs here as much as the others do. (They also have their own articles, except unspecified subclass ships.) I'm restoring it for the time being. ::Perhaps we should simply move the entire "known vessels" list to a separate article, like we do for crew lists that have grown too large? --Columbia clipper 21:08, July 18, 2010 (UTC) The mirror Connies are almost certainly very different in some ways given they had an original one to develop from for a century earlier than the prime reality. But even if they are identical we have a separate article for the mirror universe connies now, so there's no need to include anything about mirror connies on its page at all, this article should now be solely about prime-Constitution class vessels, as both mirror universe and alternate reality ones have been split off to separate articles. Much the same as we don't have info about Beverly Crusher in other realities on her page, because we have separate articles for her in the mirror universe and other alternate realities. Anywho. I wouldn't support splitting this article in two, members of a class of ship are a key element of a class of ship article, I think they should stay right here, no matter how many there are. --8of5 22:42, July 18, 2010 (UTC) :I think you're confusing individual vs. group differentiation. Beverly Crusher and her mirror counterpart are different persons, but both Beverly Crushers are human. Similarly, the and are different ships, but both are Constitution-class. The current practice on Memory Beta is to include mirror ship within their classes (see several templates); I agree that this is correct. :The article is excesively long when the known ships are included. If you're opposed to a separate article (which I still think is the best course, and matches our practice when sections of articles become too long, such as personnel lists and heavily mined sections of history; e.g. Voyages of the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) (2264 to 2270) and The Early Voyages of the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701)), would the div class="appear" code be acceptable to you? --Columbia clipper 23:11, July 18, 2010 (UTC) You didn't give a very good example to qualify your argument there, considering we have articles for Human and Human (mirror)... Starships are just as different as people from reality to reality; same parts (design, DNA, whatever), different history. If we have split the articles, as we have in this example, then we don't need to duplicate information. This article is no longer about mirror-Constitution class vessels, because we have a separate article details vessels of that class in that reality. Sure there are plenty of articles that haven't been split, and for those examples I agree it is entirely appropriate to keep mirror ships lists on the general ship class article. But that is not the case here. And nope, can't say I'd support hiding the list either, for the exact same reason; this is an integral piece of information for this page. I disagree with the basic premise that it makes the page too long. --8of5 23:26, July 18, 2010 (UTC) One further thought. I think the ideal solution here would be to significantly expand this page and the subclass pages to do a much better job explaining what all the subclasses are about. If this existing page became a sort of hub to give a general historical overview of the Constitution class as a whole, but then direct users to the sub-classes for specific technical information and ship lists, then the long list would be gone completely, and users could find out what all the sub-classes are. However until that development is done I don't think it would be beneficial to move stuff away, because casual reader unaware of the subclasses could get very confused (I know I do!)--8of5 23:34, July 18, 2010 (UTC)